XP SP2

I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
afraid to download it. So many people have problems with
some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there
so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
something out that was going to cause everyone to have to
change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking
advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2.
Others simply need updates or adjustments.
Still others are abandoned by their manufacturers.
Check the manufacturer for hardware and software compatibility with
SP-2.
Preparation helps for a problem free installation as well.
The number of problems is few once preparations have been made.

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


> wrote in message
...
>I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
> afraid to download it. So many people have problems with
> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there
> so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
> something out that was going to cause everyone to have to
> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?

[Ron Reaugh]

> wrote in message
...
> I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
> afraid to download it.

They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.

> So many people have problems with
> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there
> so many problems?

There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no
problems.

> It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
> something out that was going to cause everyone to have to
> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?

Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the
folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here.

[Wislu Plethora]

>-----Original Message-----
>Some programs have problems because they were poorly
>written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
>plugged in SP-2.
<snip>

Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you
mean programs that were written for the platform as it
was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
written" program?

[Wislu Plethora]

>-----Original Message-----
>
> wrote in message
...
>> I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
>> afraid to download it.
>
>They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.
>
>> So many people have problems with
>> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is
there
>> so many problems?
>
>There are not very many proportionately. Most install
and run it with no
>problems.
>
>> It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
>> something out that was going to cause everyone to have
to
>> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
>
>Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that
NGs distill all the
>folks having problems. All the folks having no problems
don't come here.
>

Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
complaints how many complaints there might be in the
general population? Are you saying that all people *with*
problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
problems don't even know that these groups exist. I just
read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. The sad
fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.

[I like toys and cake]

> wrote in message
...
>I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
> afraid to download it. So many people have problems with
> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there
> so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
> something out that was going to cause everyone to have to
> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?

I installed SP2 on three PC's all three have very different specs
(although they are all less than 2 years old and very well maintained)
I had no serious issues at all, all my software and hardware continued
to work, with the exception of a bluetooth adapter which I expected
would have conflicts with the new native bluetooth drivers in SP2 but
that was fairly easily resolved.

SP2 is not mandatory and if you have a hardware firewall or don't
connect your PC to the internet at all then it is not necessary but it
can be uninstalled, so give it a try.

[I like toys and cake]

> wrote in message
...
>I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
> afraid to download it. So many people have problems with
> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there
> so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
> something out that was going to cause everyone to have to
> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?

I installed SP2 on three PC's all three have very different specs
(although they are all less than 2 years old and very well maintained)
I had no serious issues at all, all my software and hardware continued
to work, with the exception of a bluetooth adapter which I expected
would have conflicts with the new native bluetooth drivers in SP2 but
that was fairly easily resolved.

SP2 is not mandatory and if you have a hardware firewall or don't
connect your PC to the internet at all then it is not necessary but it
can be uninstalled, so give it a try.

[Peter R. Fletcher]

See my in-line comments.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:48 -0700, "Wislu Plethora"
> wrote:

>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
>>> afraid to download it.
>>
>>They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.
>>
>>> So many people have problems with
>>> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is
>there
>>> so many problems?
>>
>>There are not very many proportionately. Most install
>and run it with no
>>problems.
>>
>>> It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
>>> something out that was going to cause everyone to have
>to
>>> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
>>
>>Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that
>NGs distill all the
>>folks having problems. All the folks having no problems
>don't come here.
>>
>
>Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
>complaints how many complaints there might be in the
>general population?

Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably implying it, and
the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you can say with
some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages describing
problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200 people have had
problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical) figures for the
number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we know _a_
denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that everyone who has
problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that everyone (or even
everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded and hasn't
posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My impression, based on
my personal experience and that of other computer professionals that I
know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on systems that
were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this is
important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to
prove that.

>Are you saying that all people *with*
>problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
>problems don't even know that these groups exist.

Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist are likely
either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance" systems, in
which the upgrade is actually more likely to go straightforwardly.

>I just
>read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
>a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
>in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
>go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
>when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
>that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied.

That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a matter of fact,
of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be periodically emptied
- if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain proportion
of the available disk space (I think that the default is 20%) and,
when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that percentage, the
oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room for the new
one.

> The sad
>fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
>the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.
>

As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so.

Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
Peter R. Fletcher

[Peter R. Fletcher]

See my in-line comments.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:48 -0700, "Wislu Plethora"
> wrote:

>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
>>> afraid to download it.
>>
>>They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.
>>
>>> So many people have problems with
>>> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is
>there
>>> so many problems?
>>
>>There are not very many proportionately. Most install
>and run it with no
>>problems.
>>
>>> It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
>>> something out that was going to cause everyone to have
>to
>>> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
>>
>>Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that
>NGs distill all the
>>folks having problems. All the folks having no problems
>don't come here.
>>
>
>Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
>complaints how many complaints there might be in the
>general population?

Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably implying it, and
the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you can say with
some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages describing
problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200 people have had
problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical) figures for the
number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we know _a_
denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that everyone who has
problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that everyone (or even
everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded and hasn't
posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My impression, based on
my personal experience and that of other computer professionals that I
know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on systems that
were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this is
important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to
prove that.

>Are you saying that all people *with*
>problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
>problems don't even know that these groups exist.

Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist are likely
either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance" systems, in
which the upgrade is actually more likely to go straightforwardly.

>I just
>read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
>a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
>in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
>go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
>when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
>that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied.

That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a matter of fact,
of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be periodically emptied
- if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain proportion
of the available disk space (I think that the default is 20%) and,
when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that percentage, the
oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room for the new
one.

> The sad
>fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
>the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.
>

As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so.

Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
Peter R. Fletcher

[Wislu Plethora]

>-----Original Message-----
>See my in-line comments.
>
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:48 -0700, "Wislu Plethora"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I
am
>>>> afraid to download it.
>>>
>>>They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.
>>>
>>>> So many people have problems with
>>>> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is
>>there
>>>> so many problems?
>>>
>>>There are not very many proportionately. Most install
>>and run it with no
>>>problems.
>>>
>>>> It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
>>>> something out that was going to cause everyone to
have
>>to
>>>> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
>>>
>>>Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that
>>NGs distill all the
>>>folks having problems. All the folks having no
problems
>>don't come here.
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
>>complaints how many complaints there might be in the
>>general population?
>
>Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably
implying it, and
>the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you
can say with
>some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages
describing
>problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200
people have had
>problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical)
figures for the
>number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we
know _a_
>denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that
everyone who has
>problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that
everyone (or even
>everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded
and hasn't
>posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My
impression, based on
>my personal experience and that of other computer
professionals that I
>know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on
systems that
>were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this
is
>important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim
to be able to
>prove that.
>
>>Are you saying that all people *with*
>>problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
>>problems don't even know that these groups exist.
>
>Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist
are likely
>either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance"
systems, in
>which the upgrade is actually more likely to go
straightforwardly.
>
>>I just
>>read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
>>a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
>>in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
>>go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
>>when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
>>that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied.
>
>That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a
matter of fact,
>of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be
periodically emptied
>- if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain
proportion
>of the available disk space (I think that the default is
20%) and,
>when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that
percentage, the
>oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room
for the new
>one.
>
>> The sad
>>fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
>>the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.
>>
>
>As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so.
>
>Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may
benefit from the exchange.
>Peter R. Fletcher

I think maybe you have your head up your a$$, or you're so
high up in your ivory tower that you've completely lost
touch with reality. I know that the Recycle Bin doesn't
have to be emptied, and its size will take care of itself.
The Recycle Bin story was being used in the original as
an example of how clueless one particular user is (I should
have made that clear). A while back I did an informal and
thoroughly unscientific survey of ten or twelve people I
know who use XP on a daily basis, and *none* of them were
aware that there were MS-sponsored newsgroups. A few of
them weren't even aware of the existence of Usenet. At
work, I talked to a dozen or so colleagues--all of them
engineers, and all of them using XP at work, and most at
home and *none* of them were aware of the existence of
these groups.
It stands to reason (which is why you don't get it, I
guess) that the most ignorant users will have the most
problems with SP2, and the most ignorant users are also
the least likely ones to know about these groups.

[Wislu Plethora]

>-----Original Message-----
>See my in-line comments.
>
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:48 -0700, "Wislu Plethora"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I
am
>>>> afraid to download it.
>>>
>>>They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.
>>>
>>>> So many people have problems with
>>>> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is
>>there
>>>> so many problems?
>>>
>>>There are not very many proportionately. Most install
>>and run it with no
>>>problems.
>>>
>>>> It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
>>>> something out that was going to cause everyone to
have
>>to
>>>> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
>>>
>>>Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that
>>NGs distill all the
>>>folks having problems. All the folks having no
problems
>>don't come here.
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
>>complaints how many complaints there might be in the
>>general population?
>
>Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably
implying it, and
>the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you
can say with
>some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages
describing
>problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200
people have had
>problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical)
figures for the
>number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we
know _a_
>denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that
everyone who has
>problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that
everyone (or even
>everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded
and hasn't
>posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My
impression, based on
>my personal experience and that of other computer
professionals that I
>know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on
systems that
>were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this
is
>important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim
to be able to
>prove that.
>
>>Are you saying that all people *with*
>>problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
>>problems don't even know that these groups exist.
>
>Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist
are likely
>either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance"
systems, in
>which the upgrade is actually more likely to go
straightforwardly.
>
>>I just
>>read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
>>a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
>>in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
>>go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
>>when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
>>that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied.
>
>That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a
matter of fact,
>of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be
periodically emptied
>- if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain
proportion
>of the available disk space (I think that the default is
20%) and,
>when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that
percentage, the
>oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room
for the new
>one.
>
>> The sad
>>fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
>>the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.
>>
>
>As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so.
>
>Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may
benefit from the exchange.
>Peter R. Fletcher

I think maybe you have your head up your a$$, or you're so
high up in your ivory tower that you've completely lost
touch with reality. I know that the Recycle Bin doesn't
have to be emptied, and its size will take care of itself.
The Recycle Bin story was being used in the original as
an example of how clueless one particular user is (I should
have made that clear). A while back I did an informal and
thoroughly unscientific survey of ten or twelve people I
know who use XP on a daily basis, and *none* of them were
aware that there were MS-sponsored newsgroups. A few of
them weren't even aware of the existence of Usenet. At
work, I talked to a dozen or so colleagues--all of them
engineers, and all of them using XP at work, and most at
home and *none* of them were aware of the existence of
these groups.
It stands to reason (which is why you don't get it, I
guess) that the most ignorant users will have the most
problems with SP2, and the most ignorant users are also
the least likely ones to know about these groups.

[Ron Reaugh]

"Wislu Plethora" > wrote in message
...
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Some programs have problems because they were poorly
> >written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
> >plugged in SP-2.
> <snip>
>
> Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
> English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
> of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you
> mean programs that were written for the platform as it
> was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
> written" program?

Nope.

[Ron Reaugh]

SP2 works fine for the great majority of folks.

"Wislu Plethora" > wrote in message
...
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
> >> afraid to download it.
> >
> >They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.
> >
> >> So many people have problems with
> >> some of there programs since installing SP2. why is
> there
> >> so many problems?
> >
> >There are not very many proportionately. Most install
> and run it with no
> >problems.
> >
> >> It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
> >> something out that was going to cause everyone to have
> to
> >> change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
> >
> >Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that
> NGs distill all the
> >folks having problems. All the folks having no problems
> don't come here.
> >
>
> Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
> complaints how many complaints there might be in the
> general population? Are you saying that all people *with*
> problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
> problems don't even know that these groups exist. I just
> read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
> a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
> in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
> go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
> when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
> that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. The sad
> fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
> the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.
>
>

[Wislu Plethora]

>-----Original Message-----
>SP2 works fine for the great majority of folks.
>

What an idiotic statement. It's like telling a person
who's on fire that the vast majority of people don't
burn to death.

[Wislu Plethota]

>-----Original Message-----
>
>"Wislu Plethora" >
wrote in message
...
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >Some programs have problems because they were poorly
>> >written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
>> >plugged in SP-2.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
>> English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
>> of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do
you
>> mean programs that were written for the platform as it
>> was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
>> written" program?
>
>Nope.


You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
development community to the extent that programmers were
able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
they caused problems?

The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
could have done the patching *before* the holes were
exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
wtf he's talking about. You decide.

[Mike H]

Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses
that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better..
nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd
party software developers to get their act together..


"Wislu Plethota" > wrote in message
...
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>"Wislu Plethora" >
> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >Some programs have problems because they were poorly
>>> >written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
>>> >plugged in SP-2.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
>>> English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
>>> of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do
> you
>>> mean programs that were written for the platform as it
>>> was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
>>> written" program?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
> implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
> SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
> party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
> the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
> So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
> like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
> almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
> patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
> Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
> and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
> them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
> enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
> many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
> development community to the extent that programmers were
> able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
> But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
> didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
> they caused problems?
>
> The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
> shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
> the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
> or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
> hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
> programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
> says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
> this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
> could have done the patching *before* the holes were
> exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
> wtf he's talking about. You decide.
>

[Wislu Plethora]

>-----Original Message-----
>Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used
memory addresses
>that they shouldn't have in order to make their software
run better..
>nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long
enough for 3rd
>party software developers to get their act together..
>

Dumb and dumberer. Many 3rd party developers *did* take
the opportunity to update, and it was an expense that
they shouldn't have had to bear, because their original
code was COMPLIANT with the original platform. We now
have oafish users who are totally clueless when it comes
to the idea of software patches who have AU turned on,
trust in MS and install it, only to find out that some
of their programs aren't working. Shame on them for their
ignorance, but the fact remains that ALL of these problems
have a single source, and it's not 3rd party developers,
nor stupid users, nor spyware.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

As long as you think "ALL of these problems have a single source", you
will probably never see the whole picture.
No one said the fault is exclusively the 3rd party application.
But it is also not exclusively Microsoft's.

People have been demanding more secure and better written code of
Microsoft, well now it came.
Do you also go to the 3rd party manufacturers that have problems and
demand the same from them?
If not why not?
Is your solution to break Windows XP and make all other applications
work at all costs?

The manufacturers have had many months to see if they had a problem.
Some worked it out and had information available for their customers
when needed.
Others snubbed their customers, blaming Microsoft ignoring the fact
they could have been working the issue and have a solution or at least
near a solution at this time..
And still others no longer exist.

Microsoft and others listed applications known to have issues to help
the customers have better information.

If we are to have secure computing, it is going to take great effort
amongst the development community, not just Microsoft.
The users will also have to learn safe computing practices.
If you expect Microsoft to accomplish secure computing alone, prepare
for very unsafe computing.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Wislu Plethora" > wrote in
message ...
> Dumb and dumberer. Many 3rd party developers *did* take
> the opportunity to update, and it was an expense that
> they shouldn't have had to bear, because their original
> code was COMPLIANT with the original platform. We now
> have oafish users who are totally clueless when it comes
> to the idea of software patches who have AU turned on,
> trust in MS and install it, only to find out that some
> of their programs aren't working. Shame on them for their
> ignorance, but the fact remains that ALL of these problems
> have a single source, and it's not 3rd party developers,
> nor stupid users, nor spyware.

[Wislu Plethora]

>-----Original Message-----
>As long as you think "ALL of these problems have a single
source", you
>will probably never see the whole picture.
>No one said the fault is exclusively the 3rd party
application.
>But it is also not exclusively Microsoft's.
>
>People have been demanding more secure and better written
code of
>Microsoft, well now it came.
>Do you also go to the 3rd party manufacturers that have
problems and
>demand the same from them?
>If not why not?
>Is your solution to break Windows XP and make all other
applications
>work at all costs?
>
>The manufacturers have had many months to see if they had
a problem.
>Some worked it out and had information available for
their customers
>when needed.
>Others snubbed their customers, blaming Microsoft
ignoring the fact
>they could have been working the issue and have a
solution or at least
>near a solution at this time..
>And still others no longer exist.
>
>Microsoft and others listed applications known to have
issues to help
>the customers have better information.
>
>If we are to have secure computing, it is going to take
great effort
>amongst the development community, not just Microsoft.
>The users will also have to learn safe computing
practices.
>If you expect Microsoft to accomplish secure computing
alone, prepare
>for very unsafe computing.
>
>--
>Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>

As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft
has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until
things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written
code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to
developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing
programs that work on the target platform using the
specifications and architectuire they were given to work
with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of
this code was written to take advantage
of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about
the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the
holes before the miscreants could crawl through them.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

No one suggest "heinous crime", that is entirely your idea.
As for shifting the blame, you need to read my posts again.
There is blame to go around.
Once you get the idea there is blame on many areas including the users
as well, you will start to get it.
But as long as you believe it is all Microsoft and you are blind to
the rest...

Mike gave an answer to your question.
Software was often designed to give the web developer or program
writer almost unlimited rights to what they wanted to show you.
This was largely at a time when security was not much of an issue.
Progress means change from ALL concerned, not just Microsoft.
Those unwilling to change have a choice of not updating.
Microsoft does not impose the choice on anyone, the users have and
make the choice for themselves.

People have been demanding more security.
If you choose to ignore it, that is your business.
If you choose to go with SP-2, you also choose to do what it takes to
get your computer working properly.
You can also choose another operating system, there are many choices
there as well.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Wislu Plethora" > wrote in
message ...
> As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft
> has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until
> things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written
> code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to
> developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing
> programs that work on the target platform using the
> specifications and architectuire they were given to work
> with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of
> this code was written to take advantage
> of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about
> the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the
> holes before the miscreants could crawl through them.

[Ron Reaugh]

Wacko.

"Wislu Plethora" > wrote in message
...
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >SP2 works fine for the great majority of folks.
> >
>
> What an idiotic statement. It's like telling a person
> who's on fire that the vast majority of people don't
> burn to death.

[Ron Reaugh]

Wacko squared. Anyone can read the thread for themselves.

"Wislu Plethota" > wrote in message
...
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >
> >"Wislu Plethora" >
> wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >Some programs have problems because they were poorly
> >> >written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
> >> >plugged in SP-2.
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
> >> English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
> >> of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do
> you
> >> mean programs that were written for the platform as it
> >> was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
> >> written" program?
> >
> >Nope.
>
>
> You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
> implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
> SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
> party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
> the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
> So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
> like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
> almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
> patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
> Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
> and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
> them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
> enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
> many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
> development community to the extent that programmers were
> able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
> But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
> didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
> they caused problems?
>
> The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
> shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
> the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
> or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
> hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
> programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
> says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
> this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
> could have done the patching *before* the holes were
> exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
> wtf he's talking about. You decide.
>

[Ron Reaugh]

"Mike H" > wrote in message
.. .
> Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses
> that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better..
> nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd
> party software developers to get their act together..

Right. Most folks find that SP2 works just fine.

> "Wislu Plethota" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>
> >>"Wislu Plethora" >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >Some programs have problems because they were poorly
> >>> >written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
> >>> >plugged in SP-2.
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
> >>> English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
> >>> of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do
> > you
> >>> mean programs that were written for the platform as it
> >>> was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
> >>> written" program?
> >>
> >>Nope.
> >
> >
> > You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
> > implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
> > SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
> > party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
> > the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
> > So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
> > like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
> > almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
> > patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
> > Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
> > and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
> > them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
> > enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
> > many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
> > development community to the extent that programmers were
> > able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
> > But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
> > didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
> > they caused problems?
> >
> > The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
> > shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
> > the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
> > or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
> > hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
> > programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
> > says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
> > this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
> > could have done the patching *before* the holes were
> > exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
> > wtf he's talking about. You decide.
> >
>
>

[Ron Reaugh]

Go away.

"Wislu Plethora" > wrote in message
...
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used
> memory addresses
> >that they shouldn't have in order to make their software
> run better..
> >nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long
> enough for 3rd
> >party software developers to get their act together..
> >
>
> Dumb and dumberer. Many 3rd party developers *did* take
> the opportunity to update, and it was an expense that
> they shouldn't have had to bear, because their original
> code was COMPLIANT with the original platform. We now
> have oafish users who are totally clueless when it comes
> to the idea of software patches who have AU turned on,
> trust in MS and install it, only to find out that some
> of their programs aren't working. Shame on them for their
> ignorance, but the fact remains that ALL of these problems
> have a single source, and it's not 3rd party developers,
> nor stupid users, nor spyware.
>

[Ron Reaugh]

Stop trolling.

"Wislu Plethora" > wrote in message

[Nathan McNulty]

Personally, I think this whole thread has gone to crap, but I wanted to
note that MS releases their supposed SDK's and DDK's to developers to
work with. You work with this and develop your software based on what
MS has provided. That is the best you can do since MS hasn't released
their source code for anyone to integrate their products the way they
would like to. Also, the fault lies with most software developers
(which includes MS) who try to save time and money by writing quick code
instead of strong code.

----
Nathan McNulty


Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> No one suggest "heinous crime", that is entirely your idea.
> As for shifting the blame, you need to read my posts again.
> There is blame to go around.
> Once you get the idea there is blame on many areas including the users
> as well, you will start to get it.
> But as long as you believe it is all Microsoft and you are blind to
> the rest...
>
> Mike gave an answer to your question.
> Software was often designed to give the web developer or program
> writer almost unlimited rights to what they wanted to show you.
> This was largely at a time when security was not much of an issue.
> Progress means change from ALL concerned, not just Microsoft.
> Those unwilling to change have a choice of not updating.
> Microsoft does not impose the choice on anyone, the users have and
> make the choice for themselves.
>
> People have been demanding more security.
> If you choose to ignore it, that is your business.
> If you choose to go with SP-2, you also choose to do what it takes to
> get your computer working properly.
> You can also choose another operating system, there are many choices
> there as well.
>

[Len]

You are becoming rather tedious... you do have another life somewhere don't
you. Please go their and enjoy it. We are certainly not enjoying you!

Fed up with wasted bandwidth,
Len

"Wislu Plethora" > wrote in message
...
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>As long as you think "ALL of these problems have a single
> source", you
>>will probably never see the whole picture.
>>No one said the fault is exclusively the 3rd party
> application.
>>But it is also not exclusively Microsoft's.
>>
>>People have been demanding more secure and better written
> code of
>>Microsoft, well now it came.
>>Do you also go to the 3rd party manufacturers that have
> problems and
>>demand the same from them?
>>If not why not?
>>Is your solution to break Windows XP and make all other
> applications
>>work at all costs?
>>
>>The manufacturers have had many months to see if they had
> a problem.
>>Some worked it out and had information available for
> their customers
>>when needed.
>>Others snubbed their customers, blaming Microsoft
> ignoring the fact
>>they could have been working the issue and have a
> solution or at least
>>near a solution at this time..
>>And still others no longer exist.
>>
>>Microsoft and others listed applications known to have
> issues to help
>>the customers have better information.
>>
>>If we are to have secure computing, it is going to take
> great effort
>>amongst the development community, not just Microsoft.
>>The users will also have to learn safe computing
> practices.
>>If you expect Microsoft to accomplish secure computing
> alone, prepare
>>for very unsafe computing.
>>
>>--
>>Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>>http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>
>>
>
> As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft
> has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until
> things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written
> code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to
> developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing
> programs that work on the target platform using the
> specifications and architectuire they were given to work
> with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of
> this code was written to take advantage
> of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about
> the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the
> holes before the miscreants could crawl through them.

[Frank]

Juniper you are preaching to the choir. Most of this drivel
is composed by people who have VCR's and clocks blinking
around the house, cannot assemble their children's toys at
Christmas time, and don't regularly change the oil in their
automobiles. This dumbing down and finger pointing
was heavily pushed in the 1980's. These posts are the
results.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> No one suggest "heinous crime", that is entirely your idea.
> As for shifting the blame, you need to read my posts again.
> There is blame to go around.
> Once you get the idea there is blame on many areas including the
> users as well, you will start to get it.
> But as long as you believe it is all Microsoft and you are blind to
> the rest...
>
> Mike gave an answer to your question.
> Software was often designed to give the web developer or program
> writer almost unlimited rights to what they wanted to show you.
> This was largely at a time when security was not much of an issue.
> Progress means change from ALL concerned, not just Microsoft.
> Those unwilling to change have a choice of not updating.
> Microsoft does not impose the choice on anyone, the users have and
> make the choice for themselves.
>
> People have been demanding more security.
> If you choose to ignore it, that is your business.
> If you choose to go with SP-2, you also choose to do what it takes
> to get your computer working properly.
> You can also choose another operating system, there are many choices
> there as well.

> "Wislu Plethora" > wrote in
> message ...
>> As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft
>> has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until
>> things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written
>> code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to
>> developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing
>> programs that work on the target platform using the
>> specifications and architectuire they were given to work
>> with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of
>> this code was written to take advantage
>> of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about
>> the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the
>> holes before the miscreants could crawl through them.